If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Accounting Today)   IRS: What do you want from us, anyway? We only improperly paid out 1 out of every 4 earned income tax credit claims, and that's like a piddling little $11 billion annual ripoff so quit your biatchin'   (accountingtoday.com) divider line 124
    More: Asinine, Earned Income Tax Credit, IRS  
•       •       •

2085 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Apr 2013 at 11:06 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



124 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-23 03:20:06 PM  

impaler: Gunny Walker: Lost Thought 00: Oh noes, some poor people accidentally became slightly less poor!

That was my reaction as well, but isn't EITC for poor people? So isn't the problem here is that it's going to slightly richer people?

More likely poor people without qualifying dependents.


Probably, but my point is if you are poor enough, you still qualify. (Even if you don't have kids.) That's why I put "slightly richer" in my post.
$45,060 ($50,270 married filing jointly) with three or more qualifying children
$41,952 ($47,162 married filing jointly) with two qualifying children
$36,920 ($42,130 married filing jointly) with one qualifying child
$13,980 ($19,190 married filing jointly) with no qualifying children
If you make $36,920, you might not be that hard up. (Of course, I'm in TN. YMMV in NYC.)
 
2013-04-23 03:25:25 PM  

Lehk: pdee: They showed us the receipt. The guy paid about $860 to cash a check during business hours in the middle of the week. He could have taken it to any bank and paid no more than $5 or $10.

that is assuming he was in good standing with the banks.


A lot of banks won't cash it - they make you open an account, deposit the check and wait a week before the hold is off the check. They may give you access to $1000 of it in the meanwhile.
 
2013-04-23 03:35:24 PM  

CptnSpldng: Lehk: pdee: They showed us the receipt. The guy paid about $860 to cash a check during business hours in the middle of the week. He could have taken it to any bank and paid no more than $5 or $10.

that is assuming he was in good standing with the banks.

A lot of banks won't cash it - they make you open an account, deposit the check and wait a week before the hold is off the check. They may give you access to $1000 of it in the meanwhile.


WalMart will cash a tax refund check for $3.
 
2013-04-23 03:36:56 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: This is why we need more taxes.
So the government can waste more money.

/this is what liberals actually believe.



If only we had a budget surplus before the GOP controlled the Whitehouse and both houses of Congress for 6 years!
 
2013-04-23 03:42:42 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: jigger:
Why would people be afraid of the IRS? They are kind and helpful people. They are public servants.

Very much this. My parents underwent an audit a couple of years ago (rules for FASFA eligibility had changed and dad didn't update the records, since he's a joint signer on my loans), and they still say it was extremely easy. The IRS people (even the phone support ones) don't want to fark with you, they just want the money and the forms.

Summercat: How would you 'simplify' tax codes in such a way that doesn't cripple the economy or the lower and middle class?

We are a very complex and intricate society. Simple solutions are very inefficient. You're asking for the tax code equivalent of Education's Zero Tolerance policies.

We could try treating all income, regardless of source, as equal and taxing it the same as ordinary income. That would cut some pages from the tax code, making it "simpler".

I guess we could eliminate corporate income taxes and tax any investment gains as ordinary income taxes, thus eliminating the onerous corporate tax code and treating all income the same.

But I'm surprised you are in favor of that.


As long as the minimum wage would be raised to an appropriate level and scale with inflation to keep labor at a basic level of subsistence, I would be cool with cutting some business taxes so the costs can be offset rather than allowing companies to pocket the difference.
 
2013-04-23 03:44:53 PM  

Teufelaffe: CptnSpldng: Lehk: pdee: They showed us the receipt. The guy paid about $860 to cash a check during business hours in the middle of the week. He could have taken it to any bank and paid no more than $5 or $10.

that is assuming he was in good standing with the banks.

A lot of banks won't cash it - they make you open an account, deposit the check and wait a week before the hold is off the check. They may give you access to $1000 of it in the meanwhile.

WalMart will cash a tax refund check for $3.


Not in New Jersey.  They have to apply to the DOBI in order to get a license. And there's a couple of their stores that could never get a license as long as an existing licensed check casher is located withing 2500 feet of them. Also, I doubt that they'd want to open up a completely separate set of bank accounts to keep their MSB activities separate from their other activities.

I understand that New York state is just as restrictive.
 
2013-04-23 03:52:14 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: Debeo Summa Credo: I guess we could eliminate corporate income taxes and tax any investment gains as ordinary income taxes, thus eliminating the onerous corporate tax code and treating all income the same.

Double taxation is a myth and you're still not getting any corporate sex.


A myth? That would imply that anybody who believes in double taxation is an idiot.
 
2013-04-23 03:54:47 PM  

Dr Dreidel: theorellior: Debeo Summa Credo: I guess we could eliminate corporate income taxes and tax any investment gains as ordinary income taxes, thus eliminating the onerous corporate tax code and treating all income the same.

Since corporations are legal persons, I guess that moves their "ordinary" tax bracket to 35% marginal.

And they no longer get to deduct payroll.


Great way to reduce wages. Reduce the tax benefit of paying wages. Brilliant!

Your economic genius always astounds.
 
2013-04-23 04:06:33 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Debeo Summa Credo: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: jigger:
Why would people be afraid of the IRS? They are kind and helpful people. They are public servants.

Very much this. My parents underwent an audit a couple of years ago (rules for FASFA eligibility had changed and dad didn't update the records, since he's a joint signer on my loans), and they still say it was extremely easy. The IRS people (even the phone support ones) don't want to fark with you, they just want the money and the forms.

Summercat: How would you 'simplify' tax codes in such a way that doesn't cripple the economy or the lower and middle class?

We are a very complex and intricate society. Simple solutions are very inefficient. You're asking for the tax code equivalent of Education's Zero Tolerance policies.

We could try treating all income, regardless of source, as equal and taxing it the same as ordinary income. That would cut some pages from the tax code, making it "simpler".

I guess we could eliminate corporate income taxes and tax any investment gains as ordinary income taxes, thus eliminating the onerous corporate tax code and treating all income the same.

But I'm surprised you are in favor of that.

As long as the minimum wage would be raised to an appropriate level and scale with inflation to keep labor at a basic level of subsistence, I would be cool with cutting some business taxes so the costs can be offset rather than allowing companies to pocket the difference.


I'm not even in favor of cutting taxes. I'd be in favor of a more efficient taxation of business income (reducing tax preferences in corporate code, greatly reducing corp rate, but making it revenue neutral by raising rate on dividends and cap gains), however my main point in entering these threads is to correct people who think investors are getting a great deal. They aren't.
 
2013-04-23 04:38:45 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: reality, deal with it.


The chart ends in 2010. After that it is an estimate.  So your "this is a guess based on my belief" is reality?

Let's talk about this....

You do realize that economics as applied to very large entities, like countries, isn't exactly the same as economics applied to individuals, right? And being simpleminded and saying "debt... bad ....always... forever"  has no weight when you try to apply it to reality, right?

Hell, that "debt bad always forever" doesn't even work for individuals.  You can have a debt of $250k with an income of $60k and it will be considered a reasonable situation. lots of people do this, it's called buying a house.

Governments can print money... I know, you don't like that, but it's really a straightforward idea.  Gold has no more real, intrinsic value than paper.  Just because there's less gold than paper doesn't make it more valuable.  We only value it because it's pretty.

Currencies assume value in proportion to how much they can purchase in goods and services.  Central governments will try to provide enough money so that goods and services can be fairly traded.  If there is too little currency, then each unit of currency will be horribly overvalued, and economies will suffer because there will not be enough money in circulation to do basic things buy sell and invest.

If, on the other hand, there is too much money in supply, then the currency will become nearly worthless as a currency.

Currently, under all of this austerity bullshiat that you believe in, we have policies of "don't spend money, don't print money, do everything you can to make bankers even richer"  which is what is really hurting growth.

In a low growth economy, money needs to be in high enough supply so banks can lend it, people can get it and spend it.  If businesses don't spend, and consumers aren't spending, the government has to prime the pump with its own spending.

BTW, have you noticed that repubes are very Keynsian when it comes to military spending, but non keynsian when it comes to other government spending?
 
2013-04-23 05:00:08 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Dr Dreidel: theorellior: Debeo Summa Credo: I guess we could eliminate corporate income taxes and tax any investment gains as ordinary income taxes, thus eliminating the onerous corporate tax code and treating all income the same.

Since corporations are legal persons, I guess that moves their "ordinary" tax bracket to 35% marginal.

And they no longer get to deduct payroll.

Great way to reduce wages. Reduce the tax benefit of paying wages. Brilliant!

Your economic genius always astounds.


I wasn't assigning a valence (I actually assumed this would be bad), just pointing out that doing away with corporate tax law and counting all money in as income means businesses don't get to deduct payroll.
 
2013-04-23 06:22:19 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Debeo Summa Credo: Dr Dreidel: theorellior: Debeo Summa Credo: I guess we could eliminate corporate income taxes and tax any investment gains as ordinary income taxes, thus eliminating the onerous corporate tax code and treating all income the same.

Since corporations are legal persons, I guess that moves their "ordinary" tax bracket to 35% marginal.

And they no longer get to deduct payroll.

Great way to reduce wages. Reduce the tax benefit of paying wages. Brilliant!

Your economic genius always astounds.

I wasn't assigning a valence (I actually assumed this would be bad), just pointing out that doing away with corporate tax law and counting all money in as income means businesses don't get to deduct payroll.


Okay, not sure of the relevance but I apologize. Thought you were were suggesting keeping the tax at 35% AND don't deduct payroll.
 
2013-04-23 06:33:47 PM  

maddogdelta: tenpoundsofcheese: reality, deal with it.

The chart ends in 2010. After that it is an estimate.  So your "this is a guess based on my belief" is reality?

Let's talk about this....

You do realize that economics as applied to very large entities, like countries, isn't exactly the same as economics applied to individuals, right? And being simpleminded and saying "debt... bad ....always... forever"  has no weight when you try to apply it to reality, right?

Hell, that "debt bad always forever" doesn't even work for individuals.  You can have a debt of $250k with an income of $60k and it will be considered a reasonable situation. lots of people do this, it's called buying a house.

Governments can print money... I know, you don't like that, but it's really a straightforward idea.  Gold has no more real, intrinsic value than paper.  Just because there's less gold than paper doesn't make it more valuable.  We only value it because it's pretty.

Currencies assume value in proportion to how much they can purchase in goods and services.  Central governments will try to provide enough money so that goods and services can be fairly traded.  If there is too little currency, then each unit of currency will be horribly overvalued, and economies will suffer because there will not be enough money in circulation to do basic things buy sell and invest.

If, on the other hand, there is too much money in supply, then the currency will become nearly worthless as a currency.

Currently, under all of this austerity bullshiat that you believe in, we have policies of "don't spend money, don't print money, do everything you can to make bankers even richer"  which is what is really hurting growth.

In a low growth economy, money needs to be in high enough supply so banks can lend it, people can get it and spend it.  If businesses don't spend, and consumers aren't spending, the government has to prime the pump with its own spending.

BTW, have you noticed that repubes are very Keynsian when ...


You are very, very funny.
+1 for the funny.
/please post again, I enjoyed the laugh.
Favorited.
 
2013-04-23 09:26:39 PM  
maddogdelta:

Hell, that "debt bad always forever" doesn't even work for individuals. You can have a debt of $250k with an income of $60k and it will be considered a reasonable situation. lots of people do this, it's called buying a house.

That really is the stupidest argument people use on fark.

You do realize that that debt is secured by the underlying asset, the house.
You can walk away from that debt, pay some fines, have a hit on your credit rating, but that is not really a lasting debt and you can keep earning your $60k/year.

If we default on $16T in debt, what is that secured by (besides the full faith, blah, blah, IOUs of the US)?
And when we default, and the economy goes belly up, what will that do to your ability to keep collecting the revenue taxes that you are used to collecting?

The correct analogy is that you have $60k in income, $70k in living costs and $250k in student loan debt.
 
2013-04-23 09:30:21 PM  
As a CPA, I welcome Accounting Today to Fark and hope to see more this most informative and humorous journal.

Reminds of that scene in Look Who's Talking where Grandpa (retired CPA) was reading the Journal of Accountacy and laughing his ass off.
 
2013-04-23 09:49:43 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: That really is the stupidest argument people use on fark.

You do realize that that debt is secured by the underlying asset, the house.
You can walk away from that debt, pay some fines, have a hit on your credit rating, but that is not really a lasting debt and you can keep earning your $60k/year.


And US debt is held mostly by US citizens.


tenpoundsofcheese: If we default on $16T in debt, what is that secured by (besides the full faith, blah, blah, IOUs of the US)?
And when we default, and the economy goes belly up, what will that do to your ability to keep collecting the revenue taxes that you are used to collecting?


Keep that in mind the next time the MAJORITY party in the house holds up raising the "allow the Treasury to borrow what the house already contracted it to pay out" limit (better known by the misnomer 'debt limit').

Because that's the only way we can default.
 
2013-04-23 10:20:45 PM  

impaler: tenpoundsofcheese: That really is the stupidest argument people use on fark.

You do realize that that debt is secured by the underlying asset, the house.
You can walk away from that debt, pay some fines, have a hit on your credit rating, but that is not really a lasting debt and you can keep earning your $60k/year.

And US debt is held mostly by US citizens.


tenpoundsofcheese: If we default on $16T in debt, what is that secured by (besides the full faith, blah, blah, IOUs of the US)?
And when we default, and the economy goes belly up, what will that do to your ability to keep collecting the revenue taxes that you are used to collecting?

Keep that in mind the next time the MAJORITY party in the house holds up raising the "allow the Treasury to borrow what the house already contracted it to pay out" limit (better known by the misnomer 'debt limit').

Because that's the only way we can default.


He's right that the student loan debt scenario is a much better analogy than the stupid home mortgage.

You are right about the debt ceiling and default, but the reason we can't actually default is because we can print our own money. And just printing money to pay down debt isn't exactly a good outcome either.
 
2013-04-23 11:11:30 PM  

pdee: All this because the government gave him more money than he had ever seen in his life and he had no clue how to handle it.


What I got out of that screed is maybe we shouldn't give money to Oil Companies or Monsanto anymore.
 
2013-04-24 01:43:06 AM  

TrollingForColumbine: TrollingForColumbine: Most are smart enough to figure out the best way to do this

now I see it.


Who did you think you were logged in as?
 
2013-04-24 07:35:39 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: If we default on $16T in debt, what is that secured by (besides the full faith, blah, blah, IOUs of the US)?
And when we default, and the economy goes belly up, what will that do to your ability to keep collecting the revenue taxes that you are used to collecting?


You really don't know shiat about economics, do you.  I admitted my analogy has holes and your analogy has just as many holes, yet you believe (BELIEVE!!! IT MAKES IT ALL REAL)  that yours is perfect.

Debeo Summa Credo: You are right about the debt ceiling and default, but the reason we can't actually default is because we can print our own money. And just printing money to pay down debt isn't exactly a good outcome either.


Item one.
However, we need to print money, otherwise there would be none.  And barter isn't good for any society that as varied sources of wealth as we do.  The gold standard is only one step above barter, and a great way (outside of teaching creationism as science) to send us back into the dark ages.

impaler: Keep that in mind the next time the MAJORITY party in the house holds up raising the "allow the Treasury to borrow what the house already contracted it to pay out" limit (better known by the misnomer 'debt limit').

Because that's the only way we can default.


this is the real case...the only way a sovereign nation can default on its debt.


And to think... this whole subthread started, and continues, because some people BELIEVE their right wing talking points, and hope that those will become real because they BELIEVE so hard.
 
2013-04-24 07:40:06 AM  

I created this alt just for this thread: Oh FFS, quit being coy and just come right out and accuse them of being racist for noticing racism already. You know you want to.


This is obviously not necessary.
 
2013-04-24 08:52:01 AM  

maddogdelta: tenpoundsofcheese: If we default on $16T in debt, what is that secured by (besides the full faith, blah, blah, IOUs of the US)?
And when we default, and the economy goes belly up, what will that do to your ability to keep collecting the revenue taxes that you are used to collecting?

You really don't know shiat about economics, do you.  I admitted my analogy has holes and your analogy has just as many holes, yet you believe (BELIEVE!!! IT MAKES IT ALL REAL)  that yours is perfect.

Debeo Summa Credo: You are right about the debt ceiling and default, but the reason we can't actually default is because we can print our own money. And just printing money to pay down debt isn't exactly a good outcome either.

Item one.
However, we need to print money, otherwise there would be none.  And barter isn't good for any society that as varied sources of wealth as we do.  The gold standard is only one step above barter, and a great way (outside of teaching creationism as science) to send us back into the dark ages.

impaler: Keep that in mind the next time the MAJORITY party in the house holds up raising the "allow the Treasury to borrow what the house already contracted it to pay out" limit (better known by the misnomer 'debt limit').

Because that's the only way we can default.

this is the real case...the only way a sovereign nation can default on its debt.


And to think... this whole subthread started, and continues, because some people BELIEVE their right wing talking points, and hope that those will become real because they BELIEVE so hard.


You do understand that I'm not advocating barter, right? Just pointing out that printing money to cover debts incurred by a sovereign nation is not a benign solution. Inflating your way out of debt isn't much better than defaulting.
 
2013-04-24 03:20:19 PM  

I created this alt just for this thread: Dancin_In_Anson: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: Yes, that's way I read it because they made a point of mentioning that the guy is black:

And it's the one thing you focused on whereas I read it and thought "Sounds like a few white trash meth heads in my neck of the woods."

Oh FFS, quit being coy and just come right out and accuse them of being racist for noticing racism already.  You know you want to.


I'm surprised we didn't get a full-on racial slur there.

The Internet Never Forgets
 
2013-04-24 04:35:49 PM  

LibertyHiller: The Internet Never Forgets


What in God's name are you babbling about?
 
Displayed 24 of 124 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report